Waco Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Vista has its uses and for computer newbies there's no reason not to use Vista There's nothing in Vista that lends itself to n00bs more than XP except for the UAC... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 There's nothing in Vista that lends itself to n00bs more than XP except for the UAC... I don't think he was trying to say that Vista is for noobs. I think the point he was making is that if you're a noob, you're probably not particularly attached to XP, in which case there's no reason for you not to get Vista. I really have a lot of beefs with Vista, but even I can admit that for the average user, there are very few reasons not to get Vista (If you're in a buying position that is. I don't think it's worth the upgrade cost if you already have a good OS.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeble Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 There's nothing in Vista that lends itself to n00bs more than XP except for the UAC... It's not about that. Do you really think that Microsoft is going to reverse it's course and make the next version of Windows more like XP than Vista? No. People are easily satisfied with all that flashy Aero crap and Microsoft knows that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 I don't think it's worth the upgrade cost if you already have a good OS. This I would agree with. I wouldn't spend whatever the crazy amount is to get Vista if I already had XP. However, if I didn't have either I'd certainly spend the extra couple bucks to get it. It's not about that. Do you really think that Microsoft is going to reverse it's course and make the next version of Windows more like XP than Vista? No. People are easily satisfied with all that flashy Aero crap and Microsoft knows that. There's not a whole lot that's different about Vista versus XP other than a few things have been moved around (to better places IMHO...backing up a user now only requires saving a single folder that contains all settings and files). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 There's not a whole lot that's different about Vista versus XP other than a few things have been moved around (to better places IMHO...backing up a user now only requires saving a single folder that contains all settings and files). It takes some getting used to if you're accustomed to the way XP handles things, but eventually you come to realize it's actually set up a lot more efficiently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flareback Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Basically there are pluses and minuses to Vista. It's pretty, I really liked the way it looked. I didn't like the new start menu. I didn't like it because I usually use the keyboard to run commands (like typing ncpa.cpl into the run command to open network connections, and creating shortcuts like typing ooo to open OpenOffice.org) The only time I went to the start menu was when I didn't know the command or hadn't created a shortcut command to type. But the start menu doesn't expand like it did in previous versions and I found I had to scroll to find what I was looking for. And I just didn't like the search feature (not sure why but I remember it annoying me on several occasions) The UAC was really annoying and got turned off quickly so there goes that security feature. the sidebar, used a lot of the cpu. I turned on a few things like tracking some stocks, the clock, the cpu meter and it used more than I cared to sacrifice all of the time. Go to a store and add a few gadgets and watch the cpu meter if you want to check it out. It may use less on a more recent/powerful system. For some people these are non-issues. For me, I didn't like them at all, which is sad because I did like the looks and some of the other features it had. Some of it was laid out better and just easier to use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 People say this all the time without backing it up with proper tests. It's not Vista's fault that you may experience a performance loss with DX10, nor is it DX10's fault. It's the fault of the developers because I've yet to find a developer that goes "Oh, DX10, let's just keep everything the same as in DX9 and just get a performance boost!" NO, that's not how it works. Every single developer who uses DX10 decides to add DX10-specific features, many of which you aren't separate toggles, and thus you never get a true DX9-vs.-DX10 performance comparison. When a game running in DX10 uses higher textures, better lighting, better shaders, and so on and so forth, OF COURSE you're going to see a drop in fps! Ya thats fine and dandy but when games are not playable on DX10 with the same settings that are used on XP that is a problem a big problem. Like I said before there needs to be some improvement on somebodys end, if MS says its not them then there needs to either be better patches or better VC drivers I really don't care as long as it gets corrected sooner then later because it is annoying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Ya thats fine and dandy but when games are not playable on DX10 with the same settings that are used on XP that is a problem a big problem. Like I said before there needs to be some improvement on somebodys end, if MS says its not them then there needs to either be better patches or better VC drivers I really don't care as long as it gets corrected sooner then later because it is annoying. Show me a game that you can enable DX10 with the same exact features as DX9 and/or a game that won't run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Like I said before there needs to be some improvement on somebodys end, if MS says its not them then there needs to either be better patches or better VC drivers I really don't care as long as it gets corrected sooner then later because it is annoying. That's just it - most of the problems except for a specific few have been corrected... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Show me a game that you can enable DX10 with the same exact features as DX9 and/or a game that won't run. I never said the game wouldn't run I said it was unplayable meaning to many jumps in frames to enjoy it and this would be 1680x1050 and above lower settings is no issue. Crysis is one that has issues of course I would expect this to be fixed on their first patch. Bioshock COD4 Fear Call of Juarez Now this is on Nvidia based cards you switch to ATI and its worse ATI just dies but its ATI so I am not suprised <_> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 I never said the game wouldn't run I said it was unplayable meaning to many jumps in frames to enjoy it and this would be 1680x1050 and above lower is settings is no issue. Crysis is one that has issues of course I would expect this to be fixed on their first patch. Bioshock COD4 Fear Call of Juarez Now this is on Nvidia based cards you switch to ATI and its worse ATI just dies but its ATI so I am not suprised <_< I have an ATI card and I can run all of those games without trouble on Vista. Like I said before, your F.E.A.R. numbers are waaaay off. I played BioShock at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out with zero problems. COD4 - I've only played the demo but it ran smoothly as well. Call of Juarez ran kinda crappy in DX10 mode (it does on anything though) and ran fine in DX9 mode. Same thing with Crysis. So yeah... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 I have an ATI card and I can run all of those games without trouble on Vista. Like I said before, your F.E.A.R. numbers are waaaay off. I played BioShock at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out with zero problems. COD4 - I've only played the demo but it ran smoothly as well. Call of Juarez ran kinda crappy in DX10 mode (it does on anything though) and ran fine in DX9 mode. Same thing with Crysis. So yeah... Bioshock maxed out huh..... and what were your framerates? If you are considering 15 20 frames good then I am really going to bang my head against the wall Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts